BA profits up
 

That nice Mr. Walsh has said............

"The accounting deficit in the New Airways Pension Scheme (NAPS) is up by £101m to £2.1bn, despite the company’s increased contributions and equity markets at a five year high."

“We have announced our proposal to tackle the pension deficit and I am pleased with the dialogue we have had with staff, trustees and trade unions on this vital issue."

:rolleyes:

Bugger! Springs to mind.

PLM

BA Report 21% Annual Profit Increase ....Mmmmm...so BA can afford to pay then?

it seems very odd that every one else's pension deficit has been reduced by the rise in the stockmarket but ours somehow gets worse. :confused:

Apologies to butt in, but the reason your pension deficit is crap is that you seem to have crap pension fund managers!

I have done no research into your situation and have not read the bulk of the preceding pages, but, at the risk of being flamed --

1) Who are your fund managers, or is the fund operated internally?
2) Does anyone (IE you folks at the coalface) get a say in how the fund is administered?
3) If you do have a representative what does he/she say? Does he/she have any input into investment decisions?
4) If you don't have a representative, why not?
5) What are the managers' fees?

As someone who has threatened to strike to protect my own pension, you have all my sympathy.

Fortunately my pension gurantees me 66 percent of a three-year averaged gross when I retire. The fund is in surplus but they have started cutting back annual increases to exisiting pensioners.

Seriously, this a fight worth fighting.

Best wishes.

The deficit may have gone up because the life expectancy of the members has been raised. Actuarial valuations are notoriously broad brush.
The interesting thing is that the share price has gone up today on the increased profits. That share price takes account of the current deficit in the pension scheme and the dividend policy of BA.

Members of a pension fund have access to the accounts; ask to see them if they haven't already been sent to you. They should show the basis of the valuation.

It won't be a strike... it will be a vacation with the 500 pound bonus:E

BKB: An excellent post! :}
A work of minor genius I might say :ok:

Angels

The truth of the matter is that NAPS is run by BAPIM Ltd based in a little office in Holboln. They are actually so good at what they do BA nearly sold them off two years ago. So it's not the investment team that have caused the defecit.

I'm not a member but just like to say..
 

The pilot body that Walsh previously managed still have a defined benefit scheme with 100% membership.
Is it not the case that fighting back with a coordinated UNITED campaign might just see him off on this and many other future initiatives?
Not to fight will be read as weakess and reward and will invite many other attacks on conditions.
I am a member of IALPA but not an EI driver.

BKB...........

Boy, I'm glad I printed that out!
:}

LP

£48 million divided by 40000 employees gives an average of about £1200 per employee, which is actually not far from what I'm getting - just over a weeks pay (before that crook Brown takes his cut).

I'm very grateful. Shame they're trying to relieve me of over £500000 from my pension fund. Only another 499 bonuses to go and I'll break even.

Thieves.:mad:

BA treat us with contempt and our "managers" daily seek-out new ways of belittling the job we do in the eyes of the rest of the company, and indeed beyond. Makes it easier and easier to create a climate of suggestion along the lines of:

"overpaid for the job they do, etc etc", ad nauseam.

The pension "proposal" is no more than licensed theft. Sure- I'll slave away with our ever expanding list of soul-crushing two man transaltlantics for another TEN years whilst our ground colleagues have but two extra to do. Of course I will, Willie-Boy.

When the strike starts BA either pay up, or cease to exist-its that straightforward. Cheating, lying little b*st...s.

ShortfinalFred


Welcome to the colourful world of Engineering. :} :ugh: :{ :E

36 pages still no strike, replies more than 700.hmmm
any way i dont see why you guys should be worried, your pension funds is safe all 12 billion of it with bank of new york the newly appointed people to look after your dosh
check this out
http://www.bankofny.com/htmlpages/npr_2006_2189.htm

just pray (ahem) they dont lend the money to us govt or invest in us govt bonds :yuk:
any ways happy landings folks

Pension investments probably not looking too good over the last week!

BA should offer another deal to staff.

Increase the amount staff pay into pension to keep the same Terms and Conditions.

I would like to know what figure BA puts on that.

If BA did make this offer, Staff would be able to see the big picture.

Even more interesting comments........My previous post was affected by guinness - the point I was struggling to make was that any industrial action might lack overwhelming support if more emphasis was not made on linking in to the negotiations,a tangible improvement to BARP. Whilst it is true to say that currently BARP membership is relatively small, every new FC joiner will swell the ranks. As a BARP member, I fully accept that I joined BA in the full knowledge that as a pension scheme, it is woefull. However, as a member of BALPA ( for many years prior to joining BA ) I have to question both the CC's and the then BA BALPA membership's "ROLE" in allowing BARP to be introduced. I am not for one moment suggesting that the FSC wouldn't have been scrapped but the terms of BARP are insulting! My real point is this : industrial action needs unity - why should BARP members support any proposed industrial action if we don't see a concrete commitment on the part of the CC and the NAPS membership to improving our plight?????

Because Sid, if we cave in on pensions due to lack of unity they know we won't have the balls to fight anything else. Our terms and conditions as we know them will be gone forever. Kiss goodbye to bidline.
I agree though BARP is crap. FWIW when i and many other NAPSers joined we too were on an inferior pension compared to our peers. The original APS was awesome! I felt slightly envious at the sums paid out but certainly not bitter that they didn't strike to get me onto APS.
Maybe one day in the distant future, son-of BARP will be even worse...hard to imagine though.
If you give your support to the fight i'm absoulutely certain BALPA will seek an improvement to BARP.

The worst fear of most of us in BARP, is that BALPA will fight to within an inch of their lives to protect NAPS, and then lack the stomach for another battle over BARP, when BA say they have used up all spare cash on NAPS.

The job advert on BA.com promised me an "industry leading MP pension", and BARP is far from that.

pt,

sorry yet another barp pilot on here moaning about the deal THEY SIGNED :ugh:

yes you are right it's crap and i will be 100% behind future moves to improve your deal HOWEVER BALPA better fight to it's last breath to protect naps, the deal we SIGNED up for, or we will all be truly fecked!

please stop attempting to make the fight for barps linked with the fight to protect naps. one is about improvement and the other is about preventing a bunch of theiving MF's for welching on the deal i and thousands of other pilots signed up for.

you decided to leave RAF eating command, no doubt your ex sf and i'm humbled :ok: , for a deal that is not under threat and is still exactly the same as they offered you the day you joined up. lets keep that in mind. joining the company and then moaning about balpa fighting hard to protect agreed pension rights instead of improving your deal seems a little rich.

if it was such a bad deal compared to what betty was giving you why did you accept it?:confused:

awaiting the usual 'your arrogant, poor team player, selfish ****' attacks from all those not on naps, except of course those lucky b'stards on aps! it's not fair I want to crystalise as well:{

Heavy heavy,
Far too strong a response! You're not exactly doing your fellow nappers any favours if we all get tarred with the same brush as you! I'll put it down to you being tired and emotional. Lighten up and keep your eye on the real problem, i.e. thieving BA senior management!!!!!:E

AS,

tired and emotional, always!

my eye is on the real problem, those theiving managers.

my point is that the constant stream of barps pilots attempting to merge the issues whilst adopting an attitude of 'you've got it good already so why should i care' are the ones with their eyes off the ball. in PT's case he has been in BA for less than 6 months (apologies if this is wrong but appears so by post history) but is concerned that balpa will fight tooth and nail to protect the pensions of those who have invested decades in BA. im sure he would have been delighted if HM gov had his halved his pension/gratuity to pay for typhoon!

save naps or we might as well rip up our contracts, all of us!

Not so heavy Heavy. Balpa haven't started negotiations yet and when they do the position is "no negotiation on BARP, no negotiation on NAPS". I have it in writing from the vice chairman.

BARP is not just going to sit on the back burner. If it does get forgotten BALPA will be kissing goodbye to all future membership from BA. I will personally start the new union and your soon minority are all welcome to join. Membership fee based on future pension of course, that should keep it cheap for BARPers.

I think somebodys suggested that already but BARPs are going to be in the minority by some margin for at least ten years so I'll stick with BALPA for the time being thanks!

You've got to be kidding me! How long have you been in BA? And you really believe there is even the remotest possibility that savings from NAPS will go into the pockets of any pilots?:ugh: When it's gone it's gone mate.

My fault? Ich don't think so!
 

Well, speaking as someone who saw the closure of NAPS to new entrants as the line in the sand and voted accordingly (although everyone seems to be saying that now :mad: ), I'm desperately sorry to have been proved right all along, but it wasn't rocket science. "Vocal minority", my ass!

The thing is the BACC is leading the troops nicely towards confrontation now and the troops are following (funny old thing, eh?), whereas before the tone of leadership from most of the BACC was resigned and defeatist... And the troops followed in that direction too. :mad: Thank goodness there are moves afoot to get rid of those on the BACC who are not living up to the fire and brimstone that appears in their manifestos every two years.

Airrage for BACC Chairman, say I! :D

And as for those who think it's my fault that they're on a crap pension... I flew with someone recently who admitted that he had no :mad: idea what his pension would be on the the day he returned his signed contract. All BA would tell him was that it was a 'market leading scheme'... He foolishly believed them and couldn't send it back quickly enough without even asking what the 'market leading scheme' actually offered. How many others of you did the same, I wonder? And now it's supposed to be my fault somehow? :eek:

That is what you are dealing with when it comes to BA managment my new colleagues... BALPA aren't perfect (a democracy never is - but it's better than the alternative and hopefully it's about improve very soon) but if you ever think BALPA are stitching you up, just try life without them for a few pay deals and see what comes our way!

The moral of the story... Stick together and vote for strong union leadership.

As a 'napster' I am really sad to see the apparent lack of support for 'barpers'! (I hope, from a vocal minority!). I voted against the pension proposals of balpa. These effectively led to the creation of the quite appalling barp. It was a disgrace then, and still is.

Hand Solo may be correct that barpers will "be in the minority by some margin for at least ten years" But bear this in mind. Once they approach 50% BA will be after your naps pension again. If I were a barper, when considering whether to go on strike to protect somebody else's pension I couldn't avoid remembering how supportive they were of my predicament.

Don't be stupid guys, if you are a napster much below 50 years old, retiring on naps will depend on the support of barpers!

They need you now and sooner or later, you're going to need them!

Oh God! Tandemrotor, that was the last impression I wanted to give. :=

I would support absolutely any initiative that will increase the terms and conditions of any one of our colleagues. That includes voting for IA to get BARPS improved, even as a stand alone issue if it comes to it. The sooner we separate ourselves from the corporate deal, the better IMO.

Luckily, it looks as if the marketplace for our skills is finally about to lend us a helping hand; and about time too!

We will still need a strong BACC though, to make hay whilst the sun shines! :)

I would be willing to bet that 99% of people joining any company do not have a very strong grasp about pensions. They understand start salary, end salary, health scheme, time to command, company reputation and fringe benefits. I was a pension numpty and thought I would just check with my union who said: come on in, the waters are warm. The fact is that BARP was a new concept for BA who had been through several years of financial loss and wanted to cut long term costs. BALPA never accepted BARP but members may have been persuaded by a flight ops letter outlining that the pension pot was limited, their pension was under attack and allowing BARP in would take pressure off the fixed pot allowing higher payments into NAPS.

I trusted BA's reputation as a quality, fair employer. I knew pensions were usually about 2/3 of final salary and BA's final salary is excellent. By rough calculation I figured 2/3 of £130K= £80K for NAPS. I would reasonably expect £60K then for BARP. Factor for a shorter career and I would expect £40K. Balpa said £30K so there was a bit of work to do but be optermistic.

Imagine the shock when it becomes apparent the figure is £10K. on checking I realise that the calculation should have been based on pensionable pay which no one tells you is 80% of basic or about half of gross.

Now I know I can't live on £10K. NAPSters still bleet "you knew what you were signing up to" when clearly I and they did not. If they did then I am disgusted that a unionised workforce allowed it to happen. I can understand BA's commercial drive supercedes any honour but what of my colleagues honour?

I see the strategic need for BARPers to unite behind NAPS but to be told my family's future is not as important as yours and it is all my fault is not the case. The proposed loss to a NAPS pension exceeds what mine will ever be.

Luckily most BA pilots do have honour and can see a disparity but the bleeters are not helping pilot unity and therefore themselves.

I'm afraid I have to take issue with some of your points there Flying Tom.
This first quote is completely incorrect. BA had one (thats right, one) year of financial loss. Nobody was swayed by a letter suggesting that allowing BARPS to exist would ease the pressure on NAPS by allowing higher payments, in fact I don't believe any such letter was ever sent. What BA pilots were presented with was a 'fait accompli', the unilateral closing of NAPS to all BA staff without negotiation. You clearly think that BA pilots should have walked out at that stage in order to force the reopening of NAPS for pilots who had yet to join BA. BALPA made it quite clear that that sort of action would not be legal; action could only be taken when the first member joined on BARPS. When balloted on the matter, BA pilots made it clear they did not believe that was a battle that could be won. AFAIK, no other employee group in any company in the UK has fought such a battle and won, not even the British Gas Employees. They also made it clear they wanted a significanly improved BARPS and that goal remains.
Sorry mate! You should have spoken to one of us first!
Again, the information on pensionable pay is readily available, and I do mean readily, on here, on PPJN, by asking BALPA, by asking BA pilots, by all manner of means. This is stuff you really should have found out for yourself as so many of your new colleagues did. You'd have no way of knowing just how rubbish the companys contribution to BARPS would be as even BALPA didn't know, but the pensionable pay bit is one you'll have to take responsbility for.
As I've stated above, nobody knew exactly what you were signing up to but a fair bit of information was available to at least start ringing alarm bells. Your comments about a unionised workforce allowing things to happen suggests an alarming naivety on your part. If it was as simple as allowing or not allowing something to happen then BA would not be recruting any new pilots right now because they'd all still be at Easy, Ryanair, My Travel et al 'not allowing' the managers to shaft them and getting better pay and conditions. Why did you join BA if its so easy to improve your lot elsewhere?
You have every right to be bitter about how poor the companys contribution rate to your pension is, but at least do it from an informed standpoint instead of suggesting some grand conspiracy theory amongst BA pilots to deliberately shaft you. We don't keep NAPS without you, you don't get better BARPs without us.

Hand Solo I'll put you down as a bleeter then.

If you check pprune for Oct 2004 there is no mention of about the pensionable pay issue and I posted quite a few questions. When I rang my union BALPA they didn't see fit to mention it. When we asked questions at interview BA forgot. I know I should have realised that pensionable pay was less than basic after all every other company I've ever worked for has the same. I no, it's only BA.

If BA didn't pay me a pension at all I would still lose less than you. I think you NAPSters need us. I can think of lots of reasons why we don't need you but I don't find them very honorable.

Its about asking the right questions Tom. Plenty of other people knew that pensionable pay was less than basic, it's doesn't seemed to have sneaked up on anyone but you.

That comment could be construed in two ways Tom but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I would simply say that whilst you think robbing Peter to pay Paul may be a great revenge option, Peter is going to remain in the majority for the next 15 years at least and you'll have to work with him whether you like it or not.

Hate to say this Hand, but I think you have a pretty shortsighted view of this issue, and if I'm not careful, attitudes like yours could cost me my NAPS as well as yours!

I'm not levelling this criticism at you particularly, but others on here have appealed for pilot unity:

However, the thought that we need to fight for each other, seems to be a thought too far!

IMHO - Playing straight into management's hands - Just as we always do!

Tandem - I have a lot longer to serve in BA than you and have no doubt I'll be forced to revisit the NAPS issue again in the future, quite possibly after you've retired. Unfortunately I find myself in this fight for the long term. This years attack is only the first, there'll be more to come in the future and what little pilot unity there is (and lets be honest, it's always a transient thing in a community of 3000+ pilots) is essential to maintain NAPS for the existing members and improve BARPS for the new entrants. There has been a considerable show of solidarity on this thread, not just from the NAPS members, which is entirely predictable, but also from a number of BARPS members, which is both heartening and genuinely appreciated. Nonetheless there have been a few postings from BARPS members who appear to bear some sort of grudge against NAPS members for fighting for a reasonable pension on the grounds that they didn't fully understand what they were signing up for when they joined BA. I have no objection to them being angry. I do object to them using me as a scapegoat.

Hand

I know you have longer than me, and if you want to stand any chance at all of actually retiring on naps, now is the time for us all to fight for a BIG improvement in barp.

Even if it costs napsters something in return.

We (collectively) are responsible for 'waving' this derogatory MPS scheme through. (As the management knew we would!!!) To ignore this issue now is to sign the death warrant for YOUR naps.

Anybody might think the company even DESIGNED the 'B' pay scale scheme to 'divide' and conquer!!!

Could they be that sneaky??

As a BARPer I find some of the comments contained in recent posts quite insulting and quite frankly, condescending. Can someone please explain to me why the following suggestion is in any way unreasonable/unfair : that in return for fully supporting the NAPS members in their current negotiations with BA ( and any in ensuing industrial action ) that the NAPS members should fully support an immediate improvement to BARP by linking in to said negotiations such an improvement.

As I have tried to emphasise already, we need, as a union, to be united at this time. To unite the union membership, I believe that the CC need to emphasise to both BA and the membership, that a tangible and immediate improvement to BARP is essential.

Hand Solo,

Sadly not. The first attack was when they closed naps to new joiners. You couldn't see it then, and you still don't see it now.

And this is why the management are running rings around you.

Good luck, you'll need it.

pb

I agree with the previous two posts.

NAPSters and BARPers,

This ought to be uniting. A certain (very) senior member of the Flight Ops management team who will remain nameless has just been awarded £330k worth of share options. This is not far short of the amount they're proposing to nick from my pension. The data is available from the London Stock Exchange if anyone wants to look for it.

Is there anyone out there who still thinks they can't afford to pay?

Funnily enough, I posted this right when they first proposed the closure of the final salary scheme to new entrants. The existing members thought "Whew! I'm safe!" but didn't look far enough into the future to see when the BARPS members outnumbered the NAPS members. Then, with the balance tipped in their favour, the management could do whatever they wanted because the BARPS guys wouldn't support members who had seen them hung out to dry!

I didn't envisage it happening so quickly, but that works in your favour. BA CAN afford to give a decent deal to the new joiners.. the figures prove it, the bottom line is WAY up on expectations, and the deficit is only based on an arbitrary formula which is meaningless.

I am not speaking as a BARPS member... I am what is generally viewed as scum by mainline crew.. BA Connect, BA CitiExpress, or whatever else your managers want to call us this week!

But if you lot start to show some compassion and understanding for those beneath you (BARPS Members) it will eventually filter down to us lowlifes!

Our final salary scheme may only give us in TOTAL, what you guys are worried about losing, but that is crucial to our plans to take the grandchildren to the beach in years to come.

UNITY UNITY UNITY. The ONLY way forward.

(God, I wish I had your worries... honestly take a look at the rest of us :rolleyes: )

P.S Lloyd Cromwell Griffiths... why do I know that name? What area of BA does he deal with?